How can we move mega-projects?

This is the real reason why projects do not take off. Having witnessed this over many years, I still stand in awe of big multi million initiatives that actually do take off. These sort of projects require an excellent ability to coordinate, tolerate the constant back and forth and long and protracted discussions.

There are definitely some better examples out there but by and large, it usually begins with an idea. The ideation stage is a happy and carefree time to dream up of new possibilities. As the idea matures, more stakeholders are brought in. Viewspoints are expressed, some without knowing the context. Some without knowing the technicalities. Still they continue to be said. People, in an attempt, to look useful, have adapted themselves to echo opinions. As more people are loaded up the cart, the one pulling the cart finds it hard to move quickly. Eventually, the cart will break.

How does one then make sense of this situation?

To make sense of this situation is to recognize that the breakdown is rarely a result of malicious intent. Rather, it is the emergent property of a system lacking clear structure, accountability, and leadership. The cart breaks not because of the weight of bad people, but because of the misapplied and uncoordinated force of good people operating within a flawed framework.

We can understand this phenomenon through several lenses.

First, there is the diffusion of accountability. When a project has one clear owner, the responsibility for success or failure is absolute. As more stakeholders are added, particularly in advisory or oversight capacities, this accountability begins to fragment. It becomes a shared responsibility, which in practice, can quickly become no one's responsibility. The person pulling the cart is technically the owner, but every person added to the cart feels they have a stake in the direction without feeling the direct weight of pulling it. The result is a chorus of navigators and a single, exhausted driver.

Second, we must acknowledge the political economy of the corporate environment. In many organizations, visibility is a currency. To be silent in a meeting is often misinterpreted as being disengaged or unintelligent. Therefore, contributing an opinion, any opinion, becomes a performance of value. It is a way to signal one's importance and justify one's presence. This dynamic incentivizes commentary over comprehension. The quality of the input becomes secondary to the act of providing it. Stakeholders are not necessarily trying to sabotage the project; they are trying to succeed within the social rules of their environment.

Third, there is the fundamental misalignment of incentives. The project leader is incentivized by the project's successful and timely completion. A stakeholder from the legal department, however, is incentivized by the mitigation of all possible risks, no matter how remote. The finance stakeholder is incentivized by cost control above all else. Each stakeholder is acting rationally and correctly according to their own function, but their collective actions impose conflicting forces upon the project. They are not adding their weight to help pull the cart forward; they are pulling it in different directions simultaneously.

How then, does any large project move forward? It does so not by accident, but by design.

Successful initiatives counteract these entropic forces with deliberate structures.

This begins with a strong and empowered project sponsor or leader. This individual must do more than coordinate; they must curate. They must have the authority to filter feedback, to distinguish between critical insights and performative noise, and to politely shelve suggestions that, while well-intentioned, are ultimately distractions. They act as a membrane, protecting the core team from the chaotic swirl of opinions.

Furthermore, successful projects establish a clear governance framework from the outset. This framework is the project's constitution. It defines not just who is involved, but how they are involved. It specifies who holds decision-making power for different aspects of the project, what the process for resolving disputes is, and at which specific gateways stakeholder input will be formally sought and integrated. This transforms participation from a constant, free-flowing discussion into a structured, disciplined process.

Ultimately, making sense of the broken cart requires a shift in perspective. The problem is not the people who are loaded onto it. The problem is the absence of a chassis strong enough to bear their weight and a driver with a clear map and the authority to navigate. The success of a multimillion-dollar initiative is, therefore, less a miracle of universal agreement and more a triumph of meticulous social and structural architecture.